Yup, we did the grease plate treatment. We did find it misaligned, and the handling did improve... however, I think it may have something to do with the Ce180 gear I use. The geometry puts the mains almost 5" further forward... i.e. more mass aft. Come to think of it, the other 170s I have flown had 180 gear as well... I forgot about that.
M

And, so does mine.

MTV

Hmmm. Well, maybe I just have nubs for feet...

Grass or dirt is no problem; but I just don't force the tail to stay up on the asphalt. I have invested too much blood, sweat, time, and money to horse around with it. For now, I think I'll stick to letting the tail come down on its own (no more forward stick after my initial release of back pressure) and give me the drag and the steering available from the little wheel back there.

Maybe as my memory of all the tribulations of restoration fades, I'll start working on the extended tail-up rollout. It sure is pretty to watch somebody do that well...

M

Punkin,

The point is, if you like three point landings, by all means DO three point landings. If, for whatever reason, airplane, pilot, runway, or whatever, you don't like wheel landings, DON'T do em.

BUT, and this is a very important point, that several of us have been trying to make here: DO NOT mix the two.

If you touch down with the tail low, but not touching, and just sorta let the tail come down when it's ready, you are asking for trouble.

As I said in earlier comments, there are lots of ways to do this stuff, and lots of them work, but this is one that will get you in trouble at some point.

I am really serious. Either three point, or get the tail up and unload the wing (wheel land), but DO NOT do anything in between. It will catch up with you sooner or later.

There aren't many hard and fast rules in aviation, but that's about as close as you'll get.

Nothing wrong with a nice three point, and the 170 does three points with great aplomb. Since you can see so well over the bow, they work as well as a wheel landing in many situations.

Pick yer choose, but don't try to mix the two or you'll find a wrinkle at some point.

MTV

As we discussed in the "MAF wheel landing" thread last month, this is pretty much the technique I have gravitated into. It seems to work well in most cases. Touching down tail low (but not 3 point), unloading the back pressure and rolling the airplane up on the mains while cutting power and retracting flaps definitely glues it to the runway.

However, I am still not convinced that pushing the stick forward to the stop as she slows down buys me any extra directional control or additional safety factor. In fact, the transition between flying machine and ground machine becomes less and less positive while the tail is hanging in the air and airflow over the tail is decreasing. When the elevator's authority starts to run out, so does the rudder; and you have not yet established directional control by any other means. This also gets more and more aggravated when your CG moves toward the aft limit.

If the tail comes down a bit earlier, you then have some drag at the aftmost point on the airplane (pointing the nose forward) and some steering authority with the tailwheel during the most critical time of that transition. This seems to be a "safer" technique than forcing the tail to stay up as long as possible.

If you can convince me otherwise, I am all ears! I just know that so far, this seems to work best for me in my 170.

Matt

Punkin,

What method are you using for take off? Are you letting the plane fly itself off from three point or are you lifting the tail? If your lifting the tail are you barely lifting it or getting the aircraft level?

From what I gather you sound a little apprehensive or timid with the wheel landings due to some preservation instincts from a costly rebuild. If that's the case by all means stay away from the wheel landings. It wouldn't hurt to get some quality instruction on the wheel landings to get your confidence back. You might try some high speed taxi practice on a calm day. Bringing the tail up and letting it back down until you get comfortable with it again.

And please don't take this as a slam on your piloting abilities, it's not. Some people just do three point landings better while others are better at wheelies. It's obvious which ever one you do better is going to provide the most confidence.

As MTV said, you can't kinda do a wheel landing or it's gonna rear up and bite ya in the butt.

On the takeoff roll, I bring the tail all the way up as the airspeed comes alive. With takeoff power applied, the thrust pulls the nose of the airplane forward, the slipsteam gives rudder and elevator excellent authority, and thus directional stability is not in question.

My question regarding the MAF wheel landing technique has still not really been addressed. How will this technique bite me? It seems to offer all the best qualities of a wheel landing AND a three-point landing: Accuracy and reduced touchdown speed of the three point, as well as directional control and unloading of the wing (lift killing) of the wheel technique. I still don't see how forcing the tail to stay up as long as possible buys me anything but instability in my airplane. It is a pretty maneuver, and one I will happily execute in a Cub, Maule or Citabria variant. I just don't feel as though it is necessary or "safe" in my airplane.

Yes, I am concious of my extended restoration work. However this "conciousness" does not prevent me from doing a true wheel landing - especially in gusty crosswinds on a long runway. I certainly don't avoid them. I just execute them in the "MAF style" and choose not to force the tail to stay up as long as possible.

M

It's hard to evaluate precisely what you are describing. What you are now describing is quite different than you described initially ("My 170 is very happy with merely a release of back pressure when the wheels touch. I then cut power, retract the flaps, and let the tail ease to the ground. It is not a good idea (in my airplane, anyway) to force the tail to stay up. If you do, she looses directional control right before the tail comes down, and around you may go.".

That description does not accurately describe what is being referred to as the "MAF wheel landing technique".

It sounds like you are doing a tail low wheel landing, then getting the tail on the ground as quickly as you can. But, you will have the nose of the airplane and the wing at a positive AOA, and any gust of wind WILL send you for a ride, because you are neither fish nor fowl at that point.

You will be faster than you would have been in a three point, but you won't have the stability that you would have had from a properly executed wheel landing.

You can't just slam the stick full forward on a wheel landing in most aircraft, its a progression.

But, as noted before, if you land tail low, but not three point, and don't get the tail up, you will sooner or later find some difficulties.

I'd really try to find a VERY experienced instructor to do a bunch of wheel landings.

On the other hand, the 170 three points nicer than most aircraft as well, so that technique works fine as well.

But, what you describe is neither three point, nor wheel landing and that can get you in trouble.

Unless you never encounter winds, of course .

It's your airplane, so have at it.

MTV

Punkin,

Correct me if I'm wrong but what you are describing is this. When you do a wheel landing, you are only bringing the tail high enough where you feel lift leave the wing. By doing this you are still leaving a prominent angle of attack in the airfoil.

Two bad things can happen here, one can happen as a result of you trying to bring the tail down to quickly increasing your angle of attack. The other is if the lightest of breezes or worst yet a gust of wind hits the aircraft, causing the aircraft to become light resulting in loss of directional stability or possibly causing the aircraft to momentarily balloon upward into flight with absolutely no directional control. At this point you are merily along for the ride and the results are usually not pretty.

Landing in the rough bouncing along with the wing partially unloaded and trying to get heavy on the brakes at the same time is not going to provide you with the desired results either.

If your not going to fully unload the wing by bringing the tail up in a wheel landing, I would strongly suggest you stay to three pointing.

This is what I was taught in my wheel landing training with the MAF instructor. We tended to land somewhat tail low and then when the mains hit, nailed it to the ground with yoke forward, tail up, level, and then road it out until the tail was ready to come down on it's own. I have not really experienced any directional control problems at slow speeds that brakes have not corrected. This is in a 185 and to date I have kept crosswinds to a minimum on hard surface.

I'll throw my two cents in and probably get burned for doing so. If you guy's are keeping the tail up for as long as is possible by slowly applying full down elevator, it's not a matter of if you will ground loop it just a matter of when.
Allow the tail wheel to come down before you lose rudder effictiveness, and when it's down pull aft on the control to ensure it stays pinned. Don't ever allow yourself to be in the position that brakes are the only directional control you have. A gusty crosswind and a slick landing surface and away you go.

Wow. What a can of worms I opened! I wasn't originally trying to educate everyone on my whole technique, but JrCubBuilder has a good point. I'll try to describe my technique a little better....

Flaps 40. 60 mph ias over the threshold. Just a bit of power. Touchdown tail low; tailwheel 3-6 inches above the runway. Cut power and release back pressure. Tail comes back up to nearly level attitude. Retract flaps (this really glues it down). No more forward stick from this point on through the rollout. Tail comes down on its own. Once it makes contact, increase aft stick pressure to hold it down. Brakes for directional control ONLY when rudder isn't enough. Brakes for deceleration ONLY when absolutely necessary (it isn't very often).

In gusty crosswinds I carry a little more airspeed and usually land flaps 0; but the same basic technique seems to work well for me.

My opinion regarding forcing the tail to stay up until running out of elevator travel/authority sorta parallels a64pilot's input. It is a pretty manuever, but it sure leaves you open to the elements when the authority of the tail runs out and that little unexpected breeze nudges that big ol' vertical surface sideways.

I am a believer that one can never have enough dual instruction. I fly with other tailwheel pilots and instructors who I admire and have more experience than I whenever possible. Every one of them has something slightly different to offer, and I learn from all of them. This site is the same way... Thanks for all the differing opinions. It makes me reevaluate why I do what I do in a constructive way. And once again... Cumbaya!

M

Here is a quote from my earlier post:

"1) You fly the airplane into ground effect, with a touch of power, and the tail 2 inches off the runway, or four inches--make yourself happy.
2) At the first touch, the throttle comes to idle, and the stick comes forward. DO NOT believe for a moment that all you have to do is "relax the backpressure" as posted by someone earlier. If you have nose down trim in at the touch, you can relax for one beat, then you'd BEST get that stick coming forward. If you don't, the airplane will remain nose up, and ANY gust of wind will cause issues. Period. The advantage of a wheel landing (other than you can see what's about to go under your tires) is that you get a NEGATIVE AOA on the wing--you unload the wing. It's not flying any more. Weight is on the WHEELS, not the wing.
3) the stick continues to come forward to keep the tail up, to maintain the attitude and keep the weight on teh mains.
4) as the elevator loses effectiveness, the tail will start to transition downward. Now's the time to transition to full AFT stick, to pin the tailwheel, and steer iwth it now.

Different airplanes prefer different techniques for different conditions. "

There should be emphasis on the last sentence.

Furthermore, nowhere in there did I say you should hold the tail up till it falls. There comes a point where elevator authority is decreasing, and that's a good time to transition to tail down. The speed of the plane at that point will be slow enough by then that you should have good control. I do not wait till I'm at a standstill to put the tail down, but I want to be dang sure it isn't going to fly again.

In any case, I've never met a tailwheel airplane that didn't require some forward stick to keep the wing unloaded, but I've not flown them all.

Again, remember that every airplane and every airplane loading is a different deal.

Sounds like we are all sorta describing a similar event in any case.

Ah, communications, ain't they grand .

Now, I will tell you that I have actually wheel landed and come to a complete stop with the tail still a couple feet off the ground. Wind was kinda stiff and I had two guys on each set of struts to keep it down. Try lowering the tail in those conditions. There was a "fair" breeze that day in Cold Bay, AK.

MTV

It does seem we're in agreement for the most part... Interesting thread all the same.

I never said I didn't unload the wing (raise the tail) after a wheel landing, nor did I say I was afraid of wheel landings either! Quite the contrary. I prefer them.

I think I originally just commented on the degree of the application of forward stick after touchdown being very different in different airplanes. If I fly my 170 like a Supercub, it's bad juju!

M

PS. Lucky for all yall (or not), WX sux in SLC today. Otherwise we'd be enroute to Margaritaville. Oh well, tomorrow should be better... and just in time too. "Fly Fast, Live Slow..."

hey guys, I have had great fun reading all the discussion of landing styles. It took a while but I think I finally understand what each of you were trying to say.

My questions is, with the Cessna 170, how do you adjust the main gear alignment? Can you set toe in? can you set caster? camber? Is it all done in the gear box with shims?

My Stinson has alignment isues, he handles very well but has uneven tire wear but there is no way to change anything short of bending metal somewhere.

Shane

shorton wrote:hey guys, I have had great fun reading all the discussion of landing styles. It took a while but I think I finally understand what each of you were trying to say.

My questions is, with the Cessna 170, how do you adjust the main gear alignment? Can you set toe in? can you set caster? camber? Is it all done in the gear box with shims?

My Stinson has alignment isues, he handles very well but has uneven tire wear but there is no way to change anything short of bending metal somewhere.

Shane

Are you sure your Stinson is male? Uneven tire wear indicates to me that it's probably a female (and a high maintenance one as well).

The 170 alignment is done at the wheel/brake assembly attach points using shims that are rotated to acquire the proper alignment. The Cessna 100 Series Service Manual has the procedure outlined for the 180/185 but not the 170 unfortunately. The 170 POH indicates that the wheels should have 0 toe-in and 0 camber at 2000 lbs in the three-point taxi attitude. The 100 Series Service Manual, although not specifically written for the 170, is still quite helpful in making the adjustments.

I don't know much about the Stinson, but I would think the adjustment procedure would be similar...

Matt

PS. The gender identity crisis may be an issue. Maybe he/she just doesn't know which way to go... Oh wait a minute. You said directional control wasn't a problem...

Duhhhh. Yeah that's what I meant. Thanks, Jr.

Stinsons can be aligned. It is done with shims and springs in the olios. If you need information on this give me an email and I will give you a hand. Dane

Some interesting commentary in this thread that I hadn't seen presented quite in this fashion before. Bumping for the sake of other who haven't been around for eight years.